161. As the document mentioned above was not included in the records, the violation of the adversarial principle cannot be invoked here. 162. Thus, the Court understands that this first plea invoked by the Applicants does not substantiate any new fact, whose existence could have a decisive influence on the cause, which, pursuant to article 25 of Protocol A/P1/7/91, can justify an application for Revision. 163. Therefore, the Court considers this plea unjustified and rejects it. b. The right to compensation for destroyed property 164. In support of this second plea, the Applicants claim that: 165. The Court did not examine their rights to personal property and housing; That the Court could not ignore their rights to compensation for damages suffered as a result of the destruction of the property built on the Gountou Yena site, even if the Court dismisses their claim to their property right over those lands; That against all their expectations, the Judgment assumes that the non-recognition of the Applicants' property rights nullifies all of their other rights, such as the right to be compensated; That even if Applicants could not be recognized as owners of the land, they still had property rights, such as legal and peaceful occupation and ownership of personal property, such as plantations and houses, and should have been compensated; That since the State does not dispute that it destroyed the Applicants' personal property and deprived them of their economic interests in the Gountou Yena site, the Court would necessarily have ordered compensation for those properties, had it considered them. 31